“Alleyway in Hell” – a report on China’s black jails
Filed under:human rights, News, Opinion | Tags:China, corruption, government, human rights, reform
Add comments
Introduction
The majority of black jail detainees are petitioners-citizens from rural areas who come to Beijing and provincial capitals seeking redress for abuses ranging from illegal land grabs and corruption to police torture. Petitioners, as citizens who have done nothing wrong-in fact, who are exercising their legal right to complain of being wronged themselves-are often persecuted by government officials, who employ security forces and plainclothes thugs known as retrievers or jiefang renyuan, to abduct them, often violently, and then detain them in black jails. Plainclothes thugs often actively assist black jail operators and numerous analysts believe that they do so at the behest of, or at least with the blessing of, municipal police.
Human rights abuses related to China’s black jails bear a striking similarity to those of the official compulsory custody-and-repatriation, or shourong qiansong, system, which the government abruptly abolished in June 2003. Shourong, a vagrancy detention system, legally allowed police to detain “undesirables”-mostly petitioners, but also including beggars and any individuals who lacked official identification papers-and to transfer them to official “relief and repatriation” centers where they were held for a short period of time before being returned to their home districts. Researchers reported that extralegal black jails began operating within months of the abolition of the vagrancy detention system.
Let’s be clear, the people held there aren’t criminals – they aren’t even political dissidents. They’re ordinary people trying to seek relief in Beijing when they can’t get it at the local level.
Police/central government involvement
The Police are accused of being implicit in the system, not just turning a blind eye because the petitioners “disrupt stability” but even assisting in detaining petitioners.
Such police indifference to the plight of black jail detainees is common, according to a Beijing-based legal expert who has researched the problem of black jails.
“Local police don’t help. Local government officials often have relationships with the Beijing police, so Beijing police don’t interfere [in black jail operations]. Police see petitioners as “disrupting stability” and also [refuse to act] due to jurisdictional issues; they leave [petitioners in black jails] to the local government officials.”
A former detainee from Jiangsu province told Human Rights Watch that municipal police showed up at the black jail facility located in a Beijing hotel where he was held and “made a report,” but then departed without explanation and without freeing him from custody. Another former detainee said that Beijing police did not respond to his “110” calls for assistance after he was detained by Heilongjiang petitioning officials in a black jail facility in a central Beijing building. A woman from Heilongjiang province detained in a Ministry of Social Affairs building in her home province said that when she contacted police for assistance, they candidly explained that they had no power to intervene in cases of black jail detentions.
“[Your detention] is the desire of upper levels [of government], and if you have opinions about that when this is over, consult the city government authorities or the mayor to solve. Anything that happens inside [black jails] we can’t go to investigate and [we] can’t solve any of your problems.”
Further to the disturbing suggestion in this purported conversation that senior officials/politicians support these detentions, the report says that the central government supports such actions to stop petitioners disturbing “social harmony and stability” ahead of important dates/events, such as the National Day celebrations in October this year.
Al Jazeera conducted its own investigation into black jails earlier this year, talking with Xu Zhiyong amongst other people. It includes part of an interview, where the central government is accused of deliberately giving people false hope about the petition system.
Wang Songlian, the research director of China Human Rights Defenders, told Al Jazeera that some facilities in Beijing functioned as centralised black jails and were used to house petitioners caught by Beijing police.
“Officials or staff in these centralised black jails would register the petitioners and then send them to the appropriate black jails organised by local authorities,” she said. “So this is actually quite an organised and systematic system in which petitioners are sent from one black jail to another in order to punish them for bringing their complaints.”
She said the central government used the petitioning system to give citizens hope, but had no interest in hearing their complaints or to address them.
“When people suffer injustice they can go to court to sue the local officials, but because of the dependence of the court on the local government it is not impartial,” she said. “The other option is for people to escalate their complaints [by petitioning] to the higher authority in the hope of getting some redress.”
China’s official media often carries reports about petitions being addressed by local governments.
“The government has an interest in keeping people’s hope in the petitioning system alive,” said Wang. “Otherwise they will have all that pent-up anger in them and not have any outlet.“
There is a video on the Al Jazeera report here, including where the reporter discovered a black jail and heard the screams of someone asking for help.
Abuse against petitioners
Petitioners may be subject to severe physical abuse.
A 46-year-old former detainee from Jiangsu province who was abducted off of a Beijing street and forcibly returned to Jiangsu to spend 37 days in a black jail cried with fear and frustration as she recalled her abduction during an interview with Human Rights Watch.
“[The abductors] are inhuman. Their car drove up to that place [where I was] and two people dragged me by the hair and put me into the car. My two hands were tied up and I couldn’t move. Then [after arriving back in Jiangsu] they put me inside a room where there were two women who stripped me of my clothes… [and] beat my head [and] used their feet to stomp my body.”
Women have also been raped, medical treatment and food has been withheld. Even asking for toilet paper supposedly led to someone receiving a beating. The report states that even children have been held in some of these facilities. Even after release, petitioners are expect to obey and not cause further “trouble” by trying to petition again.
Almost half of the former black jail detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch reported having been threatened with violence or extended incarceration during their detention, to discourage future petitioning efforts. One example of a very specific threat was related to us by a 36-year-old former detainee from Chongqing municipality, held from April 18, 2008, to October 23, 2008, in a black jail facility located in a local nursing home. “Upon my release, [the guards] said if I didn’t sign a ‘no petitioning’ guarantee, they’d put me in a nursing home until I died, cremate my remains and not let anyone know [what happened to me]”. A 54-year-old former detainee from Jiangsu province, held from September 23, 2008, to November 12, 2008, in a black jail located in a Beijing hotel compound, said: “I was forced to write a [no petitioning] guarantee certificate. [My captors] said ‘If you petition in the future, according to the guarantee certificate, we can break your legs.’
The report goes on to clearly detail that all of this is illegal under Chinese law, not just morally abhorant.
Apart from the brutality of the jails and the wickedness of those who run and cooperate with the running of the jails/detention of petitions, the way that the Chinese government still keeps denying the jails exist is also shameful (especially given that the black jails are hardly a secret in China). Previously I was willing to give the central government the benefit of the doubt on this matter, but the refusal to admit to what is going on is sickening.
Recommendations
Whatever reason for the denials, the government needs to stop pretending and take immediate action. The people there have broken no law that we know of and are simply trying to exercise a right to appeal they supposedly have. There can be no justification for allowing this practice to continue. The report has a list of recommendations for the government.
-
Admit the existence of black jails; close them and set detainees at liberty; and punish any person who abducts and detains another unlawfully or who operates or facilitates the operation of a black jail.
-
The Chinese government’s denial of the existence of black jails only ensures that abuses will continue and those who operate the jails will continue to go unpunished. Elimination of black jails should be a high priority for the country’s leaders, who should allow the problem to be exposed through the national media to magnify deterrence, and who should announce swift and decisive measures to identify and locate black jails, liberate the detainees, and prosecute any individuals complicit in the abduction, detention, and abuse of persons in secret black jail facilities.
-
Because Public Security Bureau personnel have been complicit in the operation of black jails in Beijing and other cities, the Ministry of Public Security should consider creating an independent investigatory taskforce with the necessary manpower and legal heft to hold perpetrators to account.
-
Officials should also permit and seek input and assistance on the eradication of black jails from the United Nations’ Committee against Torture and the United Nations’ Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
-
-
Initiate a mass public education campaign about the legal rights of petitioners, the criminality of efforts to abduct, detain, and abuse them in black jails, and the due process rights of all criminal suspects under Chinese law and international instruments.
-
Chinese authorities should ensure that all officials and members of the security forces are aware of the legal rights of petitioners and the illegality of extrajudicial abduction, detention, and abuse of detainees in black jails.
-
The government should remind officials and security forces of their obligations to protect the legal rights of all citizens, including petitioners, and the potentially severe legal penalties that abuse of those rights entails.
-
-
Establish an independent commission to investigate and publicly report on the existence of black jails and government efforts to eradicate them.
-
The commission should investigate the failure of the Chinese government at central, regional and local levels to enforce existing laws that outlaw black jails. The commission should be given unfettered access to any government records on black jails, as well as the authority to hold public hearings to collect testimony from former black jail detainees, government officials, and members of the security forces or plainclothes thugs operating at official behest who are suspected of involvement in the abduction, detention, and abuse of petitioners in black jail facilities.
-
The commission should invite the participation of domestic and international organizations, including the United Nations’ Committee against Torture and the United Nations’ Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, with knowledge and expertise pertinent to investigating and eradicating black jails.
-
- Establish a fund to compensate former black jail detainees who have suffered physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by their captors. This fund should also be used to assist former detainees in pursuing criminal and civil claims against their former captors.
-
Establish a new nationwide unit within the Public Security Bureau dedicated to investigating criminal abuses against petitioners.
-
This special police unit should be given legal authority to respond to reports of abuses of the rights of petitioners as well as the authority to enter premises which they have probable cause to believe are being used to house a black jail. This special police unit should include a rapid reaction squad available 24 hours a day. The government should also create a special 24-hour telephone hotline for petitioners to report any abuses to the new police unit.
-
-
Eliminate the linkage between local and regional government officials’ performance evaluations and the numbers of petitioners seeking legal redress in Beijing and other cities.
-
The current civil service evaluation system effectively punishes local and regional government officials for the presence of petitioners from their areas in Beijing. This system encourages the use of extrajudicial methods such as black jails to detain petitioners found in Beijing and is incompatible with the Chinese government’s frequent assertions of the primacy of human rights and rule of law.
-
-
Establish an independent commission to examine and evaluate the adequacy of the petitioning system in effectively identifying and addressing citizens’ grievances.
- The inadequacy of China’s petitioning system contributes to China’s black jail problem. The Chinese government should establish an independent commission to determine whether the petitioning system is capable of addressing the grievances of its citizens given China’s rapid modernization and unprecedented social and economic change. The commission should consider the abolition of the petitioning system, but only if urgently needed legal reforms are enacted and implemented to enable Chinese citizens to fairly and efficiently pursue legal redress through local courts.
Let’s hope these recommendations are taken forward sooner rather than later, rather than have more people suffer.
There are currently 2 comments highlighted: 53752, 54023.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Obviously – this is one of those contradictions (there are many more) you will see in a fast developing society like China. In China, people see local government as often corrupt and the central government as the savior. To whatever extent that is true, it is important – even critical – for China to develop a system that is more accountable at all levels of government as it develops. If it doesn’t – the corruption effect of the governance has the potential to choke off future growth.
However, I am curious about the timing of these human rights reports and stories – during the week when Obama makes a high profile visit to Asia. Makes you think what are the true motives and stances behind these do-gooder organizations.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Obviously – this is one of those contradictions (there are many more) you will see in a fast developing society like China.
It’s not a contradiction, because we all know that one of the things China lacks is rule of law. if China had good rule of law then it would be a contradiction.
Makes you think what are the true motives and stances behind these do-gooder organizations.
Allen, as much as I respect you, are you trying to find a reason to doubt/dismiss this report because you don’t like it but can’t criticise its content? Do you actually have anything to say about the substance of the report, such as what you think of what happens to these people? How do you feel about the abuse of Chinese citizens, including rape, apparently being tolerated by the Police and central government when they could do something about it but don’t? Do you agree with the recommendations or do you have your own ideas?
As for the timing of the report, if it is to do with Obama’s visit then I say it demonstrates the great desire the authors/organisation have in helping these people, in that they hope the US President might take the opportunity to raise the issue and get the government to admit there is a problem that needs solving. Obama will know the black jails exist, and people like Hu won’t want to lie to his face if they want him to trust China. Thus there might be, even an unwilling, admission that they exist, which would be the first step in ending this nightmare.
Releasing the report after Obama had left would have been a sign that the editors/publishers were only interested in feeling good about themselves and/or looking good, rather than trying to effect change.
As for the news articles, did Al Jazeera’s coincide with any specific date or event?
November 16th, 2009 at 3:02 am
@Allen (#1): “However, I am curious about the timing of these human rights reports and stories – during the week when Obama makes a high profile visit to Asia. Makes you think what are the true motives and stances behind these do-gooder organizations.”
Since I’m quite familiar with Greenpeace, I’m not surprised that any NGO that wants to further their cause do everything they can to make sure their reports are read and/or their media events seen. It’s of course “opportunistic” in a sense, but any group that wants to be successful need to be good at timing.
Almost a decade ago, one of my brother’s girlfriends was doing voluntary work for Amnesty International, and she said the two most difficult countries in the world were the US and China. The sheer size and power of these countries make them very difficult to influence, so it makes much more sense to use highly publicized events to get yourself seen. It’s just media logic.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:35 am
“Makes you think what are the true motives and stances behind these do-gooder organizations.” — umm, just a stab in the dark here, but maybe they want to take advantage of the high profile brought on by Obama’s visit to shed light on such issues, so that maybe, just maybe, someday perhaps far far far into the future, something might actually be done about stuff like this. I know…I know…wishful thinking….but for the reach should exceed the grasp, as they say….
November 16th, 2009 at 6:18 am
How many people were jailed ?
I am sorry, but there are hundreds of millions of children working under terrible conditions. What is the recommendation from HRW ?
Dont throw around the moral crab, I would love to see no1 hurt, but I would like to hear some measurement that worked in some countries, not some garbage on papers.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:26 am
I read somewhere that in the countries in east Europe,except Russia, all the most profitable business like financial sectors are controled by their liberators.
Imagine if China is “liberated”, Chinese people will benefit ? Please dont use the word “moral”, it is disgusting.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:45 am
To Wahaha:
“but there are hundreds of millions of children working under terrible conditions. What is the recommendation from HRW ?” — good question. I hope they get around to asking it. But if not, you should run with it.
“Dont throw around the moral crab, I would love to see no1 hurt, but I would like to hear some measurement that worked in some countries, not some garbage on papers.” — ummm, I’m not sure this is about “morals”. This is about people who would like to file grievances with the central government to not be detained, jailed, or assaulted. But if you want to view it from a moralistic angle, the answer should be fairly obvious, no?
“Please dont use the word “moral”, it is disgusting.” — I’m thinking the only one using the word on this thread is you.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:50 am
SKC,
I would like to hear some measurement that worked in some countries, not some garbage on papers.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:52 am
To Wahaha,
measurement of what, dude? Have you read the post? It’s about black jails. What on earth are you talking about?
November 16th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Like in early 1900s in US, there were laws that forbid mistreating people, but it happened again and again, even child labor, until 99.9% of people out of poverty.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:57 am
measurement of what?
SKC,
measure that works, read history of your country, read history of Europe, read history of US, see how those unfairness were gradually reduced or eliminated.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:19 am
To Wahaha #10/11:
again, have you read the post? Are you confusing this with Open Thread? What do US laws, child labour, and world history have to do with “black jails” in CHina?
“measure that works,” — again, for once, could you answer a question directly. Measurement of what on earth are you talking about?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:29 am
No, I am not confused.
We try to find ways to reduce or eliminate such incidents, right ?
then read the history of your country, of europe, or US.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Do “we” jail people who might have grievances with the government, but who haven’t broken any laws? Do we put them in “black jails”? Are we doing this today?
Does China jail people who might have grievances with the government, but who haven’t broken any laws? Yes.
Does China put them in “black jails”? Yes.
Does she do it in the present day? Yes.
So, what’s your point again?
November 16th, 2009 at 8:41 am
No more off-topic posts, please – otherwise they will be deleted.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
One of the recommendations should be the opening of the Chinese media. Many of us here who also read the ENWS blog are probably already aware of the flow of the typical citizen vs. politically connected foe stories. Going to the central government to complain about corruption at a local level is actually something of a tradition in China. However, a much more efficient way of addressing this is to have uncensored local reporting. The power of the media (especially the internet) nowadays is powerful enough that a viral video can be far more effective in catching the central government ears than going to the capital and camp out at politicians’ offices.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
It probably happened in chongqing because there are a lot of corrupt officals there. I doubt that it is widespread because this article wasn’t specific that this happens everywhere.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Second, how they know that it is the government who are responsible for these black jails. Maybe some rich real estate developer or factory owner whom was pissed off by these protesters and these people can hire their private goons.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
I have read about these black jails in Chinese media before, and think it is an absolute disgrace that they exist at all. It’s a reflection of the lack of rule of law in china, as many of you pointed out. It is also a reflection of the reality that many of these petitioners are poor people with limited education and resource, many of whom simply did not know how to fight injustice with the law as a weapon. After the new labor law passed, more and more migrant workers start to fight work place injustice with the help of NGOs. However, those petitioners, mostly from the country side, do not receive enough attention and help.
The Chinese government would do itself a huge favor by addressing the issues via targed education, stronger law programs at universities, supporting NGOs, punishment of those who run the black jails.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Even though the black jail is unlawful but this report is just another diversion to US’ Black site as many countries collaborated with the US such as Britain, Germany, Isle Of Man, Italy, Sweden, Bosnia, Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Romania and Poland.
Calling China is a country which has no rule of law is just another scapegoat for the many countries I listed above.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Double post – deleted
November 17th, 2009 at 5:23 am
To Neutrino #19:
well said.
To Pugster #18:
that’s quite far-fetched speculation. But let’s assume for a second that these black jails are in fact run by private citizens. Whose job would it be to shut these places down, and prosecute the proprietors, do you think?
November 17th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Is Fool’s Mountain hijacked by anti-china interest groups? They are spewing out the same sort of anti-China propaganda year after year. Pathetic.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
@SKC 22,
HRW didn’t explain who actually owns the black jails. Who knows, maybe someone renting an apartment or something and that’s by the time the police got to that particular black jail, the people involved are long gone.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
pug_ster (24)
I’m not sure you read my post properly, let alone the report.
HRW didn’t explain who actually owns the black jails.
Did you read Part II?
It’s not like there are 10 fixed sites with all details on the public register. Of course State facilties are, strangely enough, probably owned by the State. And I doubt very much that you can rent rooms in government buildings, mental hospitals and the like.
Who knows, maybe someone renting an apartment or something
I doubt they rent single rooms in hotels/hostels given the neighbours would complain about the screaming. It would probably be entire blocks.
that’s by the time the police got to that particular black jail, the people involved are long gone.
There are examples given of the Police assisting in the rounding up of petitioners and taken to these facilities, of the Police turning up at places (whilst people were there) and just making a report before leaving, and even of the Police saying it’s not that problem and the person will have to complain once released.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Hi Brad, #23,
I recommend a read on Buxi’s article below – this is also in our featured posts section:
http://blog4china.org/2008/07/14/try-to-view-amnesty-international-calmly/
November 18th, 2009 at 12:02 am
To Pugster #24:
“Who knows, maybe someone renting an apartment or something ….” — yes, who really knows. Maybe the Martians did it, or some extra-terrestrial alliance. Of course, they’re well connected nonetheless, being able to get access to government buildings and all.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:31 am
SKC,
yes, who really knows. Maybe the Martians did it, or some extra-terrestrial alliance. Of course, they’re well connected nonetheless, being able to get access to government buildings and all.
Yes maybe this HRW report is just a fictional report which gets an A in storytelling. Maybe HRW just paid a bunch of people who has a problem with the Chinese government, just like stories of the ‘organ harvesting’ of falun gong members. Notice that this HRW report doesn’t have any picture or any details about these black jails.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:16 am
@Jason #20, @Raj #2
First of all, I am personally against extraordinary rendition, extraterritorial detention, and the treatment and torture of detainees at Gitmo. I am also against the torture of KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed).
That said, HRW and Al Jazeera are not singling out China. Nor are they trying to take the heat off or divert the attention away from the US or any of the other countries you listed.
Here are just a few of the current and past issues with which HRW has dealt.
HRW is hardly singling out China. Let alone making China a scapegoat.
Raj believes that “It’s not a contradiction, because we all know that one of the things China lacks is rule of law. If China had good rule of law then it would be a contradiction.” I highly doubt that he is trying to scapegoat China. IMHO, the reports by Al Jazeera and HRW call into question various aspects of “the rule of law”. Furthermore, based on what I have read over the past few years, China has a number (maybe many) of laws which are on the books and not enforced. Perhaps they are just for show.
BTW, my Rabbi would be throwing a tantrum now if he knew that I read Al Jazeera, oppose the home/orchard demolitions, and that I support the Goldstone report. ::LOL::
####
Raj, you wrote in #2:
Very well said! What you have encountered is “When all else fails, use the bogeyman defense.” Above all, don’t address the direct issue(s) at hand. Create wedge issues. So typical out here! ::LMAO and all that nonsense::
November 19th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Jerry,
I don’t like it too, but Israel, US, Cuba and today I heard of a CIA black site in Lithuania are abusing people and China is no exception. HRW is largely ignored by everybody else so why should China care?
November 19th, 2009 at 8:39 am
To Pugster #28:
you’ve certainly made a number of accusations here. You wouldn’t happen to have any substantiation for those accusations now, would you?
It seems your position is that “black jails” in China aren’t a problem since they don’t actually exist. I guess i shouldn’t be surprised. After all, China’s party line on human rights is probably that human rights in China aren’t a problem since they also don’t actually exist.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
@SKC 29,
I never said that Black Jails in China or human rights doesn’t exist. HRW is making these assumptions about these black jails yet they can’t prove that it is tied to which branch of the government or even if it tied to the government at all..
November 19th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
pug_ster (32)
It is very hard to “prove” anything involving a government if it denies involvement, unless someone (usually illegally) leaks papers to the public. What the report has done is report facts (e.g. that the Chinese government denies the black jails exist) and comments from witnesses, such as the telephone conversation I cited in the initial blog post.
Which “branch” of government is involved is hard to say, though in some respects it is immaterial because government has collective responsibility. Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao and the rest of the Politburo are responsible for what goes on in the government. If they wanted to set themselves apart from what has happened they could immediately and publically action HRW’s recommendations. If it was just one branch of government being involved, the new investigative body could find out which it was and who was involved.
Also even if it is just one branch of government acting independently it bodes badly for China, that sections of the government can act illegally/assist in illegal acts without the rest knowing about it.
Generally speaking this appears to be a manifest failure of the Chinese government/political system because it is wallowing in self-denial about the problem and is either uninterested or powerless to stop the problem. What does this mean for China’s future?
November 19th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
@Jerry
It’s great that HRW or AI doing the work but I doubt Woeser and Ai Weiwei (who is clearly disappointed at Barack “ignore the past; such as torture, locking people up without trial” Obama for not telling Chinese govt more forcibly about the unlawful acts.
How fascinating and hilarious that they’ll use America as a prime example of how law should be done.
Too much kool-aid they are drinking.
The world is unlawful and China is just a part of it.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Jason (34)
The world is unlawful and China is just a part of it.
Ah, yes, finally the “the rest of the world is as bad as China” argument. I was wondering when we would get there. Do you have an example of Britons wanting to petition Gordon Brown because of some problem in their homes being locked up just for having the gumption to try it and assaulted to boot?
But even if I agreed with you that the world was generally “lawless”, how can it possibly change if we dismiss casual State/official-sanctioned/organised brutality and violation of what is nominally the law? Surely China, with such a large percentage of the world’s population, is exactly where we should be pressing for rule of law and calling for the end to things like the black jails. If there is to be law and order in the world, let it start with a country of 1.3 billion people!
November 20th, 2009 at 4:11 am
@Jason #34, @Raj #35
Jason, you wrote:
I get it, Jason. When the examples I provided make you pretty uncomfortable, you change the subject and start discussing Woeser and Ai WeiWei.
I doubt that Woeser and Ai WeiWei are using American as a symbol of perfection. Here is what Ai said to AFP in the report titled “Obama’s China visit leaves dissidents disappointed”:
Here is what Woeser said to AFP:
Just where did they say that they were using “America as a prime example of how law should be done”? Or is this just a putdown and “shoot from the hip” ridicule on your part?
To me, both of them are relentless pursuers of dreams and hope. They are disappointed because Obama, author of The Audacity of Hope, seems to be more hype than substance when it comes to hope. I am disappointed in OB, too.
This is the same old, mediocre, garden variety, typical “tu quoque” argument out here at FM. Furthermore, it sounds like you have little or no hope in China and the world progressing. So sad!
Well, give me Al Jazeera, HRW, Woeser and Ai WeiWei any day. Here is to a better, more respectful, more peaceful, happier world! 😀
November 20th, 2009 at 5:20 am
@Raj
Not this modern England. But most of the roads, bridges, dams built were once farm land where farmers reside. I highly suspect the English government would evict them from their land for modernization and the farmers get pissed but English govt didn’t care.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:22 am
To Raj #35:
that is really an awesome and succinct summary of the mode of thinking of way too many folks around here. As you suggest, it didn’t take that long to get to that point either.
I’m still waiting for someone to throw in a “black jails per capita” argument to make this thread a carbon (ahem) copy of the global warming and IP piracy threads that came before it.
To Pugster #32:
…and the funny thing is, the Chinese government also seems in no hurry to identify who within it is responsible for the “black jails”, or whose responsibility it might be to eliminate them. If only the Chinese government would cooperate more with HRW, they would get the info they need to take their expose to the next level. After all, the CCP, moreso than most parties/governments, has such a track record of trying to lose “face”. In the meantime, I suppose the CCP can fall back on “plausible deniability”, although it seems far more plausible to some than to others.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
#14,
SKC,
My point is that we are not living in a F$#%ing pecfect world, But when it is about China, some idiots judge it like everything has to be perfect, otherwise those pea brains will blame anything wrong on something they hate.
Very very very few chinese deny the problems in China, but bunch of 250s love talking to each other like what they said make sense. It is like ” Hey, this tutor did a good job with my 15 year old kid, why could not he do as good with your 9 year old son ?” Only morons would insist that this tutor wouldve done great job with a 9 year old.
Now this forum really becomes a foolsmountain.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Completely off-topic comment deleted – you were warned
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
If only the Chinese government would cooperate more with HRW, they …
____________________________________________________________
No offense, Are you smarter than a 5th grade ?
I guess if some indian human right activitsts got money from China, India government should be coorperative with those agents.
and if in 1950s, former soviet unions had sent some people to investigate the misery of black people, American government should have been coorperative.
Comment collapsed – Off-topic and personal insult
November 24th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Ahhh, Wahaha #39, I see you’re being as eloquent as ever. Clearly, you’ve spent your time in NYC well.
“My point is that we are not living in a F$#%ing pecfect world” — thanks Sherlock. You really do have all the answers.
However, if your #39 is in any way/shape/form meant as a response to my #14, then I suppose what you’re saying is that the presence of “black jails” constitutes an imperfect world. ONce again, thanks for that enlightening statement.
“some idiots judge it like everything has to be perfect” — ummm, here’s a news flash for you. China without black jails is still hardly perfect. But it would perhaps be a slight improvement.
Besides your usual pointless rants, you’ve yet to declare your position on these black jails.
“Hey, this tutor did a good job with my 15 year old kid, why could not he do as good with your 9 year old son ?” Only morons would insist that this tutor wouldve done great job with a 9 year old.” — your examples have always been moronic. This one, I suppose, would be par for the course for you. I think next time, you’d be better off to just spell out what it is you’re trying to say, cuz your examples make no sense…well, at least to sane people.
#40:
1. India has police corruption, according to this one website
2. Brazil has police brutality despite a democratic government, according to another website
3. the Thai government apparently interferes with media operations
And your point is? And this relates to black jails in China how? Do you ever make points that are comprehensible to those living outside of an asylum?
#41:
dude, if you ever learned to read properly, you would realize that the entire response to Pugster in my #38 was sarcastic tongue-in-cheek stuff. Guess you missed it. So I wonder if you are in fact smarter than a 5th grader.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:06 am
SKC,
I pasted half of HRW report about Thailand, and in the half I didnt paste, it mentioned 20 human right activitists were killed.
get it ?
I guess you are NOT WILLING TO get it !!!
I was talking about suggestion Raj mentioned, which I believe is some kind of used tissue and proved not working in countries with lot of poor people, a fact you love to ignore. Why ? cuz you hate CCP or authoritarian, so you want to pin anything wrong on CCP or “not democractic”?
I can swear with my life or anything that I would say the same thing if KMT rules mainland, can you do the same denying your hatred towards CCP ?
Come on, let us see what you really care.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:09 am
@S.K. Cheung, @Wahaha #39-40-41-43
Wow, your vituperations are so impressive, Wahaha! Your “F” and “er bai wu” remarks hardly demonstrate the pinnacle of maturity and intellectual genius. Come on!
All SK was doing was asking questions about how similar issues are handled in China and the US/West. He was asking about the topic at hand, the jailing of people who have grievances against the government and who have not broken any laws. Unless I missed it, SK did not say, “everything has to be perfect”.
I don’t recall anyone saying that China was the only HR violator in the world. I listed just a few in #29. There are many more out at the HRW site. But this is a blog about China, isn’t it?
Wahaha, you wrote in #41:
Actually, SK responded to pug_ster with the following:
The way I read it, SK was merely stating that there was a resource, HRW (and Al Jazeera), which could help the CCP to expedite the investigation this issue, if they so chose to use that resource. That would be, if the CCP is even interested in investigating the “black jails” issue.
Are you actually serious here about equating the USSR with HRW! HRW is a HR NGO; the Soviet Union was an avowed enemy of the US, and at times, China! That seems absurd to me.
Are you insinuating that HRW gets money, directly or indirectly, from any government? HRW doesn’t accept money, directly or indirectly, from any government.
Wahaha, in #43, I think SK gets it. It is hard to miss that the world is imperfect. Nonetheless, FM is a blog about China.
Huh? Like the “tutor” remark in #39, I have no clue what you are driving at. Please cite relevant passages. Otherwise, I can only guess what you have in mind.
As far as your psychological diatribe on “hate”, I believe you are assuming way too much. And you are leaping to amazing conclusions.
“Come on, let us see what you really care.”
That is so juvenile! It sounds like a 5th grader! Really!
November 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Comment deleted – Trolling and personal attacks
November 24th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
To Wahaha:
“I pasted half of HRW report about Thailand, and in the half I didnt paste, it mentioned 20 human right activitists were killed.
get it ?”
—dude, get what? Your points tend to be so terminally stupid as to be pointless. OK, so HRW says Thailand killed some activists. This would be fantastic fodder on a Blog for Thailand. What on earth does this have to do with black jails in CHina? What does it have to do with a Blog for China? Seriously, have you any capacity for any form of logic befitting a vertebrate?
“so you want to pin anything wrong on CCP or “not democractic”?” —alrighty then, Einstein. On this issue of black jails in China, on whom do you place the responsibility? Enough with the tangential baloney that you love to throw around. You seem allergic to the concept of answering direct questions. Sucks to be you.
“I can swear with my life or anything that I would say the same thing if KMT rules mainland, can you do the same denying your hatred towards CCP ?” — I don’t like authoritarian rule. Doesn’t have to be CCP, any such form of governance to me is deplorable. Oh, here’s a thought. Even if it wasn’t the CCP, it doesn’t have to be the KMT in its place, you know. Think outside the box, pal.
Dude, the things that are “5th grader” on this thread recently are your logic, your arguments, and your English.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
SKC,
Are you trying to prove you are so naive or stupid ?
Most of things you and Raj mentioned happened in other countries too, including democratic countries. You try to tell us that you didnt notice that ?
Like the black jail, it was violence by authorities. With the reports I posted, how could you deny there were similar violence in India, Brazil and Thailand ?
But hey, in China, once democratic, once CCP is gone, such violence would be gone, right ? What kind of logic is this ?
Pleeeeeeeeease, you and Raj are not that stupid. The only explanation that people with certain level of education like you two are so naive or stupid is that you hate CCP. You are not searching solutions to help Chinese people, you are inserting the idea that CCP is the reason behind anything bad in China.
let me tell you :
China is like a town with only two restaurants : one is called “authoritarian”, the other is called “western democracy”.
The first one provides great food but lousy soup.
The 2nd one provides lousy food but great soup.
Chinese are trying to builld another restaurant
November 25th, 2009 at 1:01 am
To Wahaha:
what is your impediment to the ability to read and comprehend basic English?
“…happened in other countries too, including democratic countries. You try to tell us that you didnt notice that ?” — as an example, you can try reading what I had just written in #46 (“This would be fantastic fodder on a Blog for Thailand. What on earth does this have to do with black jails in CHina?”). It’s unfortunate that such things have happened elsewhere. And somebody somewhere should raise concerns about it. But we’re talking about black jails in China, in case my reminders have fallen on deaf ears, or if those ears are connected to a brain that can’t process English. BTW, I didn’t say I didn’t notice; I merely said it’s irrelevant here. See if you can spot the difference.
“how could you deny there were similar violence in India, Brazil and Thailand ?” — perhaps you would be so kind as to show me where I had “denied” such incidences. That’d be grand, thanks. It would be nice if you respond to what I said, rather than what you hoped I had said that would make it easier for you to argue against. Is that too much to ask? Was that sentence too complicated?
“once democratic, once CCP is gone, such violence would be gone, right ? What kind of logic is this ?” — it would be poor logic. Which is why I haven’t made that argument. In fact, i haven’t argued for democracy on this thread. This thread is about the CCP’s inability to recognize the “black jail” problem, or its inability to deal with it. You are the one making this thread about “democracy”, when it isn’t. But then I recognize you’re a one-trick pony, and ranting against democracy is your one trick. I hope you’re not too old to learn new tricks.
“inserting the idea that CCP is the reason behind anything bad in China.” — oh, you’re far too kind. I can’t take credit for such a concept. You’ll have to ask Raj whether he can or not. But again, if I may direct your attention to the point of this thread, one could certainly argue that the CCP is the reason behind black jails existing; failing that, you could argue that the CCP is the reason why black jails continue to exist after they’ve been identified. I’m all ears if you think someone else is culpable.
“Chinese are trying to builld another restaurant” — hey, congrats. Of all your examples, this one is not the worst. So, this new restaurant, what’s on the menu? What’s the business plan? Who’s the target demographic? Any ideas on how this restaurant will look like, what food it will serve, how it will operate? I know, I know, I’ve asked all these questions before. Let’s just say these questions in the past have not be met by a tsunami of answers.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:04 am
We shouldn’t get carried away by analogies, but the thing about the new restaurant is quite good. So I’ll go with it (removed the line breaks and added a period):
“China is like a town with only two restaurants : one is called “authoritarian”, the other is called “western democracy”. The first one provides great food but lousy soup. The 2nd one provides lousy food but great soup. Chinese are trying to builld another restaurant.”
In China, it’s rather that you have one authoritarian restaurant with great food and lousy soup. The restaurant owner claims that the soup is great though, and that it will get even better in the future when they come up with a marvellous new system of ventilation. The soup will be so vastly superior that the world hasn’t even begun to understand it yet. All customers will be satisfied, which is way up from the low numbers you find in the diner across the street. In order to accomplish this, our authoritarian restaurant still has to investigate the problem with mould in the kitchen, cockroaches and the occasional leaking pipe. A blueprint for a plan to repair this in 50 years is already claimed to be under way, and there are vigorous debates on the exact methods of implementation. In some areas, it might be feasible to ask the other restaurant for advice or even borrow some technology, but in order to come up with the new perfect ventilation they must strongly guard against all the horrors that might happen if they used the same sort of chairs and tables.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:56 am
To WKL:
that’s hilarious. I would add that, like it or not, it’s the only restaurant in town, and everyone must eat there. All day. Every day. And even if the soup is cold and has a piece of hair in it, you better not complain too loudly.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Wukailong, classic post!
November 25th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
After all the brouhaha about the restaurant ventilation system, it was discovered that most of people actually eat in. When they do occasional takeouts, they just order food without soup, and make soup themselves. The food critics (local and out-of-towner) are very confused ….
It is ironic that media/political establishment from societies based on individuals can’t seems to grasp that private lives are lived mostly apart from public/political layers.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
wuming, are you deliberately being a spoilsport or don’t you realise that Wukailong was simply throwing an analogy back at the person who made it?
It is ironic that media/political establishment from societies based on individuals can’t seems to grasp that private lives are lived mostly apart from public/political layers.
Until your private life is disturbed. Petitioners who go to Beijing don’t do so for a laugh, they do it because they have no choice (or feel it’s the only route to justice). Either politics interferes with their lives or something else does that requires “political” action.
One could also argue that being locked up in a black jail is politics/the State interfering in their private life, as it’s perfectly legal and no one’s business whether they petition or not.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
@Raj
Wahaha made an analogy which was somewhat interesting, WKL added a twist which is much more interesting because of its nuance and ambiguity. Then SKC twist right back into the correct framework to seal it once for all. I just tried to open it up again. I see I failed with you. I am not giving up yet (but soon.)
Though I have not participated in the actual thread, I nevertheless thought it has potentials to be a good one. For example one can explore the gains and losses in the ordinary lives of Chinese under this authoritarian regime. But are you interested in things that are not black and white?
November 26th, 2009 at 4:25 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34157037
Apparently a State run newspaper Liaowang has an article about these black Jails. I wonder if someone has a copy?
November 26th, 2009 at 7:02 am
@Wahaha, @S.K. Cheung, @Wukailong, @wuming #, @Raj #
Wahaha, that is a decent metaphor in #47.
LMAO, SK. That is a great allegorical play on a metaphor.
As I said before, I would be thrilled by a trickle of answers at this point. But it seems that the best we usually get is the waving of hands in the air. Must be some secret code. ::ROFL::
WKL, your restaurant allegory is scintillating, brilliant and LMAO-funny! Fortunately, I have not lost any body parts while reading it numerous times. Sounds to me like you one-upped Rube Goldberg.
Wuming, in #52 you wrote,
Wuming, most of us live at some level of privacy. The rub comes when our privacy is invaded, as Raj pointed out in #53, “Until your private life is disturbed …”. It is unjust to throw people into a black jail, when they have violated no laws, (like the Sichuan parents I described in the China-Tibet-war thread in #380 and #388) and they simply want to seek redress for their grievances or perform some lawful action. That is a thuggery, pure and simple. And thank god for HRW and Al Jazeera and some Chinese activists who wish to expose this thuggery. And I feel sorry for those Chinese who live under the specter of “black jails”.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:24 am
To Wuming #52:
is there in fact an option to eat at home? Is there a provision for take-out? If China actually provided the option of dining at someplace other than the “only restaurant in town”, this blog likely wouldn’t exist. So if what you’re suggesting is that the CCP should provide her people with a variety of dining options, I’m all ears.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:35 am
@Pugster – Here is Malcolm Moore`s latest tweet on the subject:
November 26th, 2009 at 7:58 am
To Pugster #55:
nice article. Did you read it?
I guess you were partly right in #24. Entrepreneurs do operate these jails. Problem is that they’re contracted by provincial and local governments to do so. So when I alluded to plausible deniability in #38, it just got less plausible.
However, you were less right in #28. I guess this HRW report wasn’t too fictional after all.
I suppose it’s a good start that state media is acknowledging these jails and the government’s relationship with them. I guess the experts will now read the tea-leaves to see if such acknowledgment amounts to anything, or changes anything. However, Malcolm Moore via FOARP already strikes a cautionary tone.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
@SKC
“So if what you’re suggesting is that the CCP should provide her people with a variety of dining options, I’m all ears.”
I am not surprised that you have misunderstood the analogy, since it is an analogy after all. The straight forward description is this: people of most of the normal states live their private lives that do not interact with states in a political way. In the case of China, there was a time when private lives became almost non-existent. In last 30 years, with the expansion of its economy. also came the expansion of the private lives. Chinese people no longer only looking to the state for “dinning options” precisely because the state is no longer the only game in town (pardon me for mixing metaphors)
The news part of the media and the political establishment, because their nature, can only understand the world in political ways, therefore often fails to take into account the world outside of the political sphere. This blog suffers the same symptom.
On the other hand, the issue of “black-jail” fits squarely into the political sphere. But there is also a Chinese twist to it. The tradition of traveling to the capitals of power and appealing to higher authorities has been an established way that ordinary Chinese interacted with the state for hundreds if not thousands of years. The push-backs such as “black-jail” are just as old. The central idea to this tradition is the Chinese belief in the rule-of-man, that if you keep raise your particular injustice, you are going to reach benevolent “parental official” at some stage.
For these reasons I think the issue provides an opportunity explore many of the deeper contradictions of Chinese society. Like individual interest vs. the collective interest vs. state interest. Like the rule-of-law vs rule-of-man. But that can hardly get our juices boiling.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
wuming
I think the issue provides an opportunity explore many of the deeper contradictions of Chinese society….. But that can hardly get our juices boiling.
So if your uncle was badly beaten by a crook or your cousin was raped, you’d write it off as a “deeper contradiction of Chinese society” and think no more on it?
November 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
@Raj,
Do you mean there are no injustices anywhere outside of China or you have expressed your outrage on all the other injustices on other forums?
If “deeper contradiction” does not do it for you, then what do you want? Use this example to prove once for all that western style democracy is the only viable alternative?
November 26th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
wuming
If I had all the time in the world I might visit every forum/blog on every topic, but given my time is limited I really can only spare time for this blog (and even then I don’t post that often). And China is a country I care about, so I would focus my time on that anyway.
Rather than “deeper contradiction”, how about “flagrant breaches of human rights against innocent people that the State needs to stop from happening”? It’s not catchy, but it’s what I think most people believe.
As for the second part of your comment, interesting. So you see this as a black and white choice – one must either be willing to acknowledge that democracy is necessary for China if you want to condemn the black jails and call for change, or in order to defend against calls for democracy you must make vague/insubstantial criticisms of the black jails. Yet I did not mention the word democracy once in the blog post. Wahaha raised it first.
I, being someone who isn’t obsessed with democracy, believe that it’s quite possible for the CCP/Chinese government to reform without giving up the one party system. Whether that is what China needs for the future is a different question, but it’s quite possible to action HRW’s recommendations without threatening the CCP’s monopoly of political power.
I wonder, has the CCP conned many Chinese people into thinking that the “more efficient” authoritarian system/gradualist approach to reform can only be protected if human rights violations are tolerated in the short/medium-term? Because that is often the fear I hear expressed by Chinese people, that if something is done to really stamp out human rights violations it will require massive change across the country that would lead to turmoil.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Wuming, dude – why should Raj have to express his anger or lack thereof at happenings in other parts of the world before he gets mad at China, a country of interest to him? Did Raj say that ‘western’ democracy is the only alternative? Your point is nonsensical – can you find any objective grounds by which to defend these jails rather than simply inanely trying to to imply things about the questioners position which they have not actually, you know, said?
You mean “except when they vote, attempt to enforce legal rights against the government, complain of what they see as government abuses, attempt to influence government policy or do any of the things which almost all the people on this blog try to do in one way or another almost all the time”?
And, for your information, people seeking out the rulers of a country and begging for clemency or pardon is a universal phenomenon. In old England, for example, the king was the judge of final appeal, and in the United States the tradition is carried on in the form of the presidential pardon. Read the passages of the Bible related to King Solomon The Wise and you will see some of the earliest examples. Trying to turn this issue into a cultural mystery of only academic significance is, I think, somewhat in bad taste.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
FOARP.
Raj demanded my outrage at “black-jails” before I can express my interest in issues related to the topics. But the truth is I am not outraged by it because such things are all too common in China and elsewhere, especially when the country is still poor and governance is still in transition. Do you still see sane British citizens petition directly to the Queen or PM for readdress? There is hardly such need because of the rule-of-law. While in the case of China such extra-judicial are still commonly practiced because it not ruled by law. But can a country practice genuine rule-of-law without representative democracy, ala Singapore and Hong Kong? As you can plainly this issue has great implications beyond its emotional content, short circuiting discussion merely to win an emotional argument is, in my opinion, in bad taste.
As for my statement about private lives, thank you for completing my sentence for me. I did have “most of time” at the end of my sentence initially, but removed it because I thought that was clear. I guess I was wrong. The part where you said about people on this blog try to influence policy is an even more interesting because that is precisely what I am trying to say. Media, politicians, bloggers are much too obsessed with people’s political interaction with government while loosing sight the large parts of real lives. The story of current China is the story of the expansion of this real private lives, started from almost nothing. Failing to understand that is like blind men trying to understand elephant.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
wuming
Raj demanded my outrage at “black-jails” before I can express my interest in issues related to the topics.
I demanded no such thing. I may have tried to find out what you thought about the black jails, but you are free to say what you like so long as it isn’t off topic. Had I felt you were off topic I would have collapsed one or more of your posts.
But the truth is I am not outraged by it because such things are all too common in China and elsewhere, especially when the country is still poor and governance is still in transition.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here – you’re outraged by the treatment of people relative to the level of human rights/rule of law in a country? Because most people who care at all about the treatment of others would be outraged wherever a violation of human rights took place.
Do you still see sane British citizens petition directly to the Queen or PM for readdress?
People write to the Queen all the time. Whether they expect her to deal with problems, I have no idea as I am not privy to private correspondence. However, she may raise issues with the Prime Minister.
As for the Prime Minister himself, people petition him all the time.
But can a country practice genuine rule-of-law without representative democracy, ala Singapore and Hong Kong?
Whilst that is interesting, it is not the issue that was raised. The matter is the treatment of petitioners by the authorities, whether local or national, specifically related to the black jails. This is the point I was making in post # 63. You do not need democracy to stop people being badly treated as the victims of the black jails are.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
@SKC 59,
nice article. Did you read it?
What makes you think that I didn’t read it? If I ask people have located the liaowang article, do you think I have read that article?
November 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
pug_ster (55)
Thanks for posting a link to that article – you beat me to it. I’ll remain optimistic that something will be done about the jails in a timely fashion, but in the end only the government can put an end to them – forcibly closing these places down, no longer marking officials down for having lots of petitioners go to Beijing, etc.
As SKC commented (59), you would agree now that the black jails exist and that the report wasn’t fiction, right (28)?
November 27th, 2009 at 12:52 am
To Wuming #60:
clearly we’ve used “dining options” to refer to different things, but you explained yourself in detail, so thanks for that.
“Like individual interest vs. the collective interest vs. state interest. Like the rule-of-law vs rule-of-man.” — yes, this would be an interesting discussion indeed. On the other hand, I’m not sure if Raj intended his post to be interpreted on such a philosophical level.
It seems to me that, if this petition system is designed as an outlet for individuals by taking advantage of the paternalistic aspect of Chinese society, then these black jails constitute a double insult to the people. Not only do they fail to access an empathetic ear, but they are abused for even trying. It’s like little Billy running to his mom after his brother Tommy punched him in the stomach, and the mother sending him up to his room without supper for the night just for complaining. I mean wow, that’s tough love.
I do agree that the black jails issue is not one of democracy/authoritarianism, but rather the rule of law or lack thereof. If there was a rule of law, you wouldn’t need to petition (well, at least you’d petition the courts, not some “official” who may or may not care); and if there was a rule of law, black jails wouldn’t be tolerated.
To Pugster #67:
just checking.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:09 am
@Raj 68,
I said that these Black Jails exist, but HRW could not prove the who are running these black jails, except that they assume the Chinese government are responsible for running them.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:27 am
To Pugster:
“but HRW could not prove the who are running these black jails, except that they assume the Chinese government are responsible for running them.” — this is true. But it’s moot now since it seems that some levels of government were contracting such services. So even if the government didn’t create and operate them, she enabled their continued existence by funding them, and also by not shutting them down.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
@ Pug_ster #55: The NY Times this morning has this article commenting about the “black jail” situation and that Liaowang article you referred to. Seems a part of the government wants to put an end to these black jails while another part doesn’t want to acknowledge their existence, so they’re playing it out using the media. It’ll be interesting to see which side the powers that be decide to support.
Since the existence of “black jails” is obviously illegal under the constitution, this also becomes a battle between the edict based vs. law based factions of the Party.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
@ SKC & Pug_ster: It doesn’t matter who runs “black jails”, what matters is who funds them. In cases like this, follow the money trail. If it’s profitable to run a “black jail”, someone will fill the need. Based on the people targeted by “black jails”, it seems pretty obvious that the money is coming from cities and provinces outside Beijing that want to prevent their local petitioners from being heard, as this affects their performance reviews and ability to receive promotions within the party. That means they are government funded, not central government but local government. This isn’t exactly rocket science.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
@Pug_ster&all: Here is an NYT article about an article published on the repsected state-run magazine “Outlook” which confirmed the existence and illegitimacy of such detention places http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/world/asia/27china.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss which you can consider to be an official response from the central government.
PS:In case you don’t know, there’re security people outside the petition office who’re specifically employed for the purpose of dispersing the interceptors, you can check it out next time you come to Beijing.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
justkeeper (74)
an article published on the repsected state-run magazine “Outlook” which confirmed the existence and illegitimacy of such detention places which you can consider to be an official response from the central government
No, the official response is that made by official government spokesmen – that they do not exist. At best the publication shows that some people in “central officialdom” are sympathetic towards the problem. But until there is an official announcement of the sort that have claimed there are no black jails, the article in Outlook will not be the position of the Politburo and the government.
If the government really did believe in the black jails and was willing to admit their existence, why not say so? Because saying they exist would require them to take action. As long as they can officially deny the situation they can shirk responsibility.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
@Raj: All right, all right, having spent more than half of my life with Chinese government, I think I know more about the importance of “losing face” to them than you. Any if you have any knowledge of Chinese history, you probably should know that many of the good things they did are without official acknowledgement and may be even “offically opposed”, by your definition. And you obviously have no knowledge of the relationship between China’s two layers of government, the central and the provincial, the first have only limited control of the second, most of the time, the only effective measure of the central against the local is the performance-review determined promotion, and that’s exactly the reason why interceptors exist, letting too many petitioners through==political suicide.
Regarding the big mouth of the speakers of the foreign ministry: they’re basically created to promote the images of the unity of all Chinese people, anything unharmonious wouldn’t exist in such images. And if a speaker knows as much about every aspect of Chinese society as a President, what would you need the President for?
For me, a pragmatic Chinese, this is clear enough sign that they will take action. I wouldn’t push it too hard to incur backfiring. As one famous civilian rights activist once said:” To push the government forward, you have to make it feeling safe in the first place, you have to assure it that such changes won’t cause imminent dangers.”
November 27th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
justkeeper
I think I know more about the importance of “losing face” to them than you
I didn’t say anything about face. Are you suggesting this is all down to Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao preferring people to be illegally locked up and physically abused than admit its happening?
Any if you have any knowledge of Chinese history, you probably should know that many of the good things they did are without official acknowledgement
Last time I checked the black jails are still in existence. They’ve known about them for ages, so why haven’t they done anything about it?
And you obviously have no knowledge of the relationship between China’s two layers of government……
Actually I have plenty of knowledge of the relationship – you seem to have problems with your reading comprehension. I haven’t suggested that Beijing could press a button and stop local authorities from wanting to stop petitioners argue their case. All I’ve said Beijing should be able to take action on its own doorstep and could certainly action the list of HRW recommendations.
Moreover, if Beijing punishes officials/restricts their promotion based on the numbers of petitioners that encourages this to happen. They could find other ways to measure performance that don’t encourage human rights abuses.
And if a speaker knows as much about every aspect of Chinese society as a President, what would you need the President for?
Normally speakers are told what to say to represent the government’s opinion. If Hu Jintao/Wen Jiabao/the Politburo are letting the foreign ministry say something that isn’t official policy and they don’t consent to the announcement then they are a gutless cowards and an empty suits who would do more for China by being hammered into a river bank and made part of an area’s flood defences.
For me, a pragmatic Chinese, this is clear enough sign that they will take action.
Care to tell me what action they’ll take and when we might expect it to happen? Because if you wait long enough they might take action – that won’t stop people being treated like animals in the meantime, despite the fact something could be done about it much sooner.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@Raj: Actually I have plenty of knowledge of the relationship – you seem to have problems with your reading comprehension. I haven’t suggested that Beijing could press a button and stop local authorities from wanting to stop petitioners argue their case. All I’ve said Beijing should be able to take action on its own doorstep and could certainly action the list of HRW recommendations.
If most of the huge number of rogues who undertake the interceptions and illegal detentions could be prosecuted, we should already have a quite independent and effective justice system, then the petitioning system should not exist in the first place. This is about as hard to stop as human trafficking, we have never managed to stop human trafficking, how can you expect this being eradicated?
Last time I checked the black jails are still in existence. They’ve known about them for ages, so why haven’t they done anything about it?
See above.
Moreover, if Beijing punishes officials/restricts their promotion based on the numbers of petitioners that encourages this to happen. They could find other ways to measure performance that don’t encourage human rights abuses.
It’s not an official norm, but large number of people risking great dangers to petition in Beijing mean people are greatly dissatisfied, which say louder about an official’s arrogance, corruption and incompetence than any quotas, indicators, norms you can come up with.
Normally speakers are told what to say to represent the government’s opinion. If Hu Jintao/Wen Jiabao/the Politburo are letting the foreign ministry say something that isn’t official policy and they don’t consent to the announcement then they are a gutless cowards and an empty suits who would do more for China by being hammered into a river bank and made part of an area’s flood defences.
But reporters are not told about what question they can ask. A incompetent news speaker will frequently be caught giving embarassing answers to good(“good” by Western definition) questions, if he hasn’t studied related subjects properly. The utter incompetence of my country’s news speakers can no better be demonstrated by the notorious “do you have children” response to the BBC ‘s Green Dam question.
Care to tell me what action they’ll take and when we might expect it to happen? Because if you wait long enough they might take action – that won’t stop people being treated like animals in the meantime, despite the fact something could be done about it much sooner.
Hmmm………the problem is what could be done?You just need a undercover agent, several outlaws, and a hotel owner who won’t give it a shit as long as nobody gets killed in his/her place. You could setup a reception office right inside the railway stations, but they also’ll have their maximum capacities.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
justkeeper
If most of the huge number of rogues who undertake the interceptions and illegal detentions could be prosecuted, we should already have a quite independent and effective justice system, then the petitioning system should not exist in the first place.
What are you talking about? Petitioners usually petition because the authorities in their regions don’t care or are themselves involved in the problems they face. So unless you’re saying the Politburo are just as corrupt and/or indifferent as these people there’s no reason why they can’t take action. Or are you saying that the Politburo are powerless old men, mere figureheads?
Let’s be realistic. The central government has a load of power, especially on its own doorstep – this isn’t taking part in a remote part of Yunnan. It’s happening because of Beijing’s indifference or complicity.
large number of people risking great dangers to petition in Beijing mean people are greatly dissatisfied, which say louder about an official’s arrogance, corruption and incompetence than any quotas, indicators, norms you can come up with
They wouldn’t be risking anything if officials were good-hearted people. The best way to show you’re crooked is to punish petitioners. If you want to hide your behaviour it would be sensible to be more relaxed – play it cool. If Beijing knows about the black jails (I’m sure they do) and they knew which big-time officials were behind them (probably know at least some of them), they’d surely end those people’s careers if they thought the jails wrong.
Why not say in public “any official involved in the black jails will have his/her career immediately terminated”? That would cause a shit-storm with scared officials backing off. They’d decide it would be better to have the petitions get chewed up in the central bureaucracy system. Even before the black jails very few people got their petitions supported and even then they were hard to enforce in the provinces. If it weren’t for the rating system re petition numbers, I doubt local officials would care about petitioners that much.
Besides most complaints, from what I understand, aren’t against the big province-level bosses. Why risk getting involved with black jails if you weren’t marked down for petition numbers and you hadn’t done anything wrong yourself? If you’ve been doing well generally, Beijing would be stupid to ignore that. They might even reward people for letting their citizens air their grievances openly.
Anyway, what the hell would it hurt if Beijing changed the criteria and changed the current system of reviewing officials?
The utter incompetence of my country’s news speakers can no better be demonstrated by the notorious “do you have children” response to the BBC ’s Green Dam question
That has no relation to the point I made. You claimed that these spokespeople don’t express government policy because they don’t know it, so I said quite clearly that they’re briefed on important issues. You know when politicians and press people get thrown tough questions, they default to the response they know or ignore them.
After the first time one of these clowns said the black jails didn’t exist, anyone with half a brain in government would have been on the phone and made sure the next time they were on message. A simple message – e.g. “we’re investigating” – would have been fine.
If the spokespeople were that dumb they wouldn’t be allowed to say anything at all to anyone. New people would be hired or questions forbidden from all press conferences. That questions are allowed indicates the government is willing to circulate messages to be spread. People act stupid only when they move off the message – I doubt the Chinese government has a position on whether other countries have children.
Hmmm………the problem is what could be done?
Erm, just a moment ago you said that you believed that the government was going to take action. Now you’re saying you don’t know that they can do anything. That doesn’t make any sense.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:00 am
justkeeper
Just for clarity I’m going to suggest some things Beijing could do.
1. Admit the existence of black jails; close them and set detainees at liberty; and punish any person who abducts and detains another unlawfully or who operates or facilitates the operation of a black jail.
2. Initiate a mass public education campaign about the legal rights of petitioners, the criminality of efforts to abduct, detain, and abuse them in black jails, and the due process rights of all criminal suspects under Chinese law and international instruments.
3. Establish an independent commission to investigate and publicly report on the existence of black jails and government efforts to eradicate them.
4. Establish a fund to compensate former black jail detainees who have suffered physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by their captors. This fund should also be used to assist former detainees in pursuing criminal and civil claims against their former captors.
5. Establish a new nationwide unit within the Public Security Bureau dedicated to investigating criminal abuses against petitioners.
6. Eliminate the linkage between local and regional government officials’ performance evaluations and the numbers of petitioners seeking legal redress in Beijing and other cities.
7. Establish an independent commission to examine and evaluate the adequacy of the petitioning system in effectively identifying and addressing citizens’ grievances.
Any ideas where I got this list from?
November 28th, 2009 at 1:37 am
@Raj: You probably have got the same reading comprehension problem like me.
What are you talking about? Petitioners petition because the authorities in their regions don’t care or are themselves involved. So unless you’re saying the Politburo are just as corrupt and/or indifferent as these people there’s no reason why they can’t take action. Or are you saying that the Politburo are powerless old men, mere figureheads?
Let’s be realistic. The central government has a load of power, especially on its own doorstep – this isn’t taking part in a remote part of Yunnan. It’s happening because of Beijing’s indifference or complicity.
Let’s be realistic, even if the police come all out and arrest all the abductors they can find, and prosecute all of them, despite the unrealistically enormous legal costs, it’s not going to do any substantial damage to this industry. My country is never in lack of supply of thugs and desperados who’re willing to do anything just for money, and being put in jail is not a too bad aftermath for them(they might have been there several times before). Believe it or not, I have read report about people living on hitting vehicles on the freeway with rocks, with the hope of killing the people in the vehicles and looting their belongings, and murdering in China is punishable by death. And there is also no hope of holding any party boss accountable by interrogating these people, they were not told of anything except the petitioner they’re going to go after.
They wouldn’t be risking anything if officials were good-hearted people. So the best way to show you’re crooked is to punish petitioners. If you want to hide your behaviour it would be sensible to be more relaxed – play it cool. Besides most complaints, from what I understand, aren’t against the big province-level bosses. Why risk getting involved with black jails if you weren’t marked down for petition numbers and you hadn’t done anything wrong yourself? If you’ve been doing well generally, Beijing would be stupid to ignore that. They might even reward people for letting their citizens air their grievances openly.
Anyway, what the hell would it hurt if Beijing changed the criteria and changed the current system of reviewing officials?
They could still be provincial bosses’ proteges and relatives, or these people may have a stake in the interests driving the particular actions that the complaints are against. And if the petitioning material could really prove something, discipline inspection committee could be sent locally to find out things which are………well, surprises.
That has no relation to the point I made. You claimed that these spokespeople don’t express government policy because they don’t know it, so I said quite clearly that they’re briefed on important issues. You know when politicians and press people get thrown tough questions, they default to the response they know or ignore them.
After the first time one of these clowns said the black jails didn’t exist, anyone with half a brain in government would have been on the phone and made sure the next time they were on message. A simple message – e.g. “we’re investigating” – would have been fine.
If the spokespeople were that dumb they wouldn’t be allowed to say anything at all to anyone. New people would be hired or questions forbidden from all press conferences. That questions are allowed indicates the government is willing to circulate messages to be spread. People act stupid only when they move off the message – I doubt the Chinese government has a position on whether other countries have children.
Do you know what “Gree Dam” issue I was talking about? BBS reporter asked a question about installations of network filtering software on PCs, and the newsperson respond with a question starting with”do you have children, if you have you should understand what parents will feel blahblahblah” I was thinking quite like you , but the problem is the newsspeakers have repeatedly demonstrated their incompetences to me, to the extent they’ve became a joke in the Chinese websphere. Believe it or not, the number of people in China, who knows how to communicate with a global audience on political issues, is quite limited.
Erm, just a moment ago you said that you believed that the government was going to take action. Now you’re saying you don’t know that they can do anything.
Am I talking to the same person, or did your girlfriend start using the PC?
I think they’re going to take action, but this would not change anything. I’m being pessimistic here, clear enough? My girlfriend uses a Mac, by the way,
November 28th, 2009 at 8:05 am
To Raj #77:
“if Beijing punishes officials/restricts their promotion based on the numbers of petitioners that encourages this to happen. They could find other ways to measure performance that don’t encourage human rights abuses.” — so true.
“Normally speakers are told what to say to represent the government’s opinion.” — exactly. I can’t imagine the White House press secretary answering a question during their daily briefing that would deviate from the official Administration line. That being said, the spokesperson denied the existence of black jails a few weeks ago. If someone asked him now, maybe they’d get a different answer. On the other hand, if that spokesman were to contradict the Outlook description now, then we’d have some interesting fodder on our hands.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
justkeeper (81)
If you don’t mind I’m going to number your points when responding.
1. If the authorities can spare resources to prosecute people like Xu Zhiyong they can do something about the black jails. They need not even prosecute everyone, even closing each black jail they find and freeing the inmates would help. They could heavily fine the owners and use that money to fund other work on the black jails. If property owners realise that they run a real risk of losing everything including the shirt off their backs they wouldn’t get involved and there would be few/no facilities to run the black jails in the first place.
Furthermore it doesn’t cost money for the Police to stop assisting in grabbing the petitioners in the first place.
2. A protege isn’t worth protecting if he/she is a crook and going to drag you down. As for family, I know it’s important in China. But family is very important for myself and my other relatives too – we’re almost “Chinese” in that respect. Yet I can’t think of a single relative of mine who would use their power to have hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent people abused just to protect one relation who had committed wrongdoing and didn’t want it discovered. Even my grandfathers, who were both patriarchs of their families (one effectively a small clan) and believed in family obligations, etc, would have never stooped to the sort of behaviour you’re suggesting even for their favourite child. Family is bigger than one person, and you have to protect the majority. Committing crimes for the sake of one would see the whole family disgraced and possibly investigated.
What about my point that is wouldn’t hurt to change the system so that numbers of petitioners didn’t affect promotion prospects?
3. You’re just advancing a case for the Chinese government’s spokespeople being banned from taking questions. My point is that if they are allowed to take questions they will be told what to say on important issues. It’s possible the first time the black jails were denied it was a case of there being no brief. But after that, and after a big report like the HRW that has come out, you will be sure that the spokesperson will have been told what the government position was.
4. “You gotta help us, Doc. We’ve tried nothing and we’re fresh out of ideas!” (Ned Flanders’ beatnik parents asking a doctor for help with their son’s misbehaviour)
You know what, if the government really tries to do all it can and fails to stop it, then they’re all a bunch of useless, incompetent fools who should resign from politics forever. Even Gordon Brown, as the Chinese Prime Minister/President, could stop the black jails if he had the will. And as much as I dislike him/think he’s useless, he probably would stop them.
SKC (82)
It would be interesting to see what the official spokesperson had to say now, as you suggest.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
1. If the authorities can spare resources to prosecute people like Xu Zhiyong they can do something about the black jails. They need not even prosecute everyone, even closing each black jail they find and freeing the inmates would help. They could heavily fine the owners and use that money to fund other work on the black jails. If property owners realise that they run a real risk of losing everything including the shirt off their backs they wouldn’t get involved and there would be few/no facilities to run the black jails in the first place.
Furthermore it doesn’t cost money for the Police to stop assisting in grabbing the petitioners in the first place.
Two different issues you’re talking about here. I interpret your “grabbing away” as Beijing Police’s usual escorting of the protesters to Majialou, but I believe that’s strictly for protesters, and with non-violent means. Petitioners could become protesters in desperation, but that’s when they reach the limit of tolerance of the central government. And I consider your suggested approach of closing down and fining some hotels as deterrents to others ineffective. You don’t really need to be a legally registered hotel owner to assist the abductors, anyone with some properties can do that, and if the police break into other people’s home with or wihtout search warrants, people are going to complain again, for completely different reasons, angry and provocative posts will start to spread across the Chinese web, and this time I assure you the whole “blakc jail” issue would not be mentioned. And I heard people talking about government’s ban on “black hotels” and “black cars” is for the only purpose of earning more incomes and does no good to people blahblahblah.
2. A protege isn’t worth protecting if he/she is a crook and going to drag you down. As for family, I know it’s important in China. But family is very important for myself and my other relatives too – we’re almost “Chinese” in that respect. Yet I can’t think of a single relative of mine who would use their power to have hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent people abused just to protect one relation who had committed wrongdoing and didn’t want it discovered. Even my grandfathers, who were both patriarchs of their families (one effectively a small clan) and believed in family obligations, etc, would have never stooped to the sort of behaviour you’re suggesting even for their favourite child. Family is bigger than one person, and you have to protect the majority. Committing crimes for the sake of one would see the whole family disgraced and possibly investigated.
What about my point that is wouldn’t hurt to change the system so that numbers of petitioners didn’t affect promotion prospects?
Don’t know what’s that doesn’t make sense to you. If you want to know if the corruption is so rampant that big party bosses of provincial and mayoral leavels all got involved, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s true and that’s what discipline inspection committee uncovered in Guangdong and Chongqing, and yes, I was beleving this idea is naive, but it seems right now petitioning materials quite often provide decisive, somking gun kind evidence to local offical’s bad deeds.
3. You’re just advancing a case for the Chinese government’s spokespeople being banned from taking questions. My point is that if they are allowed to take questions they will be told what to say on important issues. It’s possible the first time the black jails were denied it was a case of there being no brief. But after that, and after a big report like the HRW that has come out, you will be sure that the spokesperson will have been told what the government position was.
My bet is on that they’re not briefed about this. A HRW report may seem like a big issue to you, but may not be so to a Politburo memeber(Amnesty Internaional people are shouting some bullshits again? Pass!) But there maybe people in advisory body picking up what’s left behind by the big bosses, and reorganize things he believed to be useful for references later, thus the “Outlook” article.
4. “You gotta help us, Doc. We’ve tried nothing and we’re fresh out of ideas!” (Ned Flanders’ beatnik parents asking a doctor for help with their son’s misbehaviour)
You know what, if the government really tries to do all it can and fails to stop it, then they’re all a bunch of useless, incompetent fools who should resign from politics forever. Even Gordon Brown, as the Chinese Prime Minister/President, could stop the black jails if he had the will. And as much as I dislike him/think he’s useless, he probably would stop them.
So how did you know they have never tried? The security people responsible for dispersing interceptors outside the buildings of agencies in charge of receiving petitions could be seen as some sort of compromising solution. Anyone who wants to push for any change in China will be met with a wall of bricks, as thick as the GFW, and simply holding this country together is a great feat, I may sound ridiculous, but there’re too many underlying things here which I know couldn’t be detailed to a British, who lives in a country where there’s no politics in its politics. Forgive me for being cynic and pessimistic.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:52 am
@justkeeper: I don’t think you need to be that cynic and pessimistic.
Remember the case of Sun Zhigang. He was beaten to death in custody for violating the tough hukou regulations in place at the time, but his case managed to get the attention of a group of intellectuals who sent a letter to the central government; after being convinced that these regulations were unconstitutional, grandpa Wen made the necessary changes. I’m pretty sure you could have made the argument that changing these rules would undermine the unity of the country, that there are politics here non-Chinese can’t understand, etc, but the rules were still changed.
I believe in a sort of Marxist logic not only when it comes to economics, but also politics: when a structure becomes too ossified or forbidding to accommodate new social phenomena, it will either adapt or be swept away if the tide becomes too powerful. I think the government adapts in some places and stagnates in others. It will be interesting to see if they can develop with regards to the black jails and other unconstitutional problems.